I sometimes love how honest guides to academic “careers” can be. Take this description of a lecturer position (maître assistant):
I realize this particular information is no longer updated, but the advice is quite simple: reduce your working hours to get more work done! Makes perfect sense⸮⸮⸮
It’s quite an honest description, though: temporary posts are dangerous and may undermine an academic career.
OK, but doesn’t this make you wonder why universities actually offer these positions that by their own admission are “dangerous” for a career, that do not include enough paid hours to get your work done? This particular guide suggests that lecturers “must take precautions against being overwhelmed by student supervision” and, better still, they “renegotiate your workload as soon as possible” — as if such a renegotiation were realistically possible.
It probably makes economic sense to have this kind of jobs, but if universities were seriously against precarious positions and exploitation, perhaps they could tackle this kind of position — maybe jointly with “part-time” PhD positions? Just an idea.
Scientia Futura provides inspiration for a career in academia, especially for women in the social sciences and humanities. Excellent initiative and very interesting and insightful interviews with outstanding scholars in the field. As it’s focused on inspiration, we don’t need that bit about survivorship bias.
The NCCR on the move is going to run a blog series on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on junior researchers. This is your opportunity to tell the world how Covid-19 disrupted mobility and may have disrupted your career.
I sometimes get a bit annoyed when your colleagues seemingly feel like they have to slavishly implement any odd thought I mention as if it was me and not the editor deciding whether the paper gets accepted (even when I explicitly write “I encourage the author(s) to consider X, and then make up their own mind”), but that’s not you. You thought that none of my comments applied to you when the editor rejected the paper last time around, and perhaps hoped you’d get “lucky” next time at a different journal. Did you realize reviewer 1 and I volunteer our time to help improve your work? Do you actually care about the contents of your paper, or is it just a line on your CV?